The Problem of the article in contemporary grammar.

As we know from practical grammar, the English noun is used with the definite or indefinite article or it can be used without any article. The article is a morphological sign of the noun. The theoretical problem connected with the article can be reduced to the following:

1) the status of the article in the hierarchical language structure;

2) the number of articles;

3) the meaning and functions of the article.

The first problem has two principal theoretical interpretations. Some scholars treat the word-group “an article + a noun” as a special analytical form of the noun in which the article is treated as a special auxiliary element or a functional word. To prove their opinion, these scholars put forward the following arguments:

a) the article is a morphological sign of the noun;

b) the article has no lexical meaning of its own;

c) in some languages which have articles, the article may have the form of a grammatical inflexion, which is not separated from the stem of the noun.

For ex, in Bulgarian: село то, линия та.

Other scholars treat the article as a special functional part of speech and the word combination “an article + a noun”, according to this point of view, is not an analytical form of the noun but a word group.

These authors say that the article is really a sign of a noun but it does not make up an analytical form of the noun. In analytical forms the auxiliary component should express the basic morphological categories, while the article does not express the basic morphological category of the noun, that is the category of number.

This category is expressed by the noun itself with the help of its own formal means. The article is treated by these authors as a determiner and so there are syntactic relations of attributive nature between the article and the noun it determines. But we know that there can be no syntactic relations between the components of n analytical form.

The article can be replaced by some other part of speech in the same determining function without changing the meaning of the whole word-group, what is impossible for analytical forms.

A book = some books

A book = this (that) book.

But has given is not equal to have given and not equal to is given.

Finally if we should treat “the book” as an analytical form of the noun, then why not treat likewise “this book” as an analytical form. Nobody has ever done it so far.

Besides, the noun can change its form expressing the category of number without affecting the definite article (the book – the books).

So it seems more convincing to share the 2^nd approach and treat the article asa functional part of speech which can make a word-group with the noun determining the meaning of the latter.

When speaking of the number of articles in English, some scholars speak of 2 articles – the definite and indefinite, while others speak of 3 articles (+ zero article).

As we can see, nobody denies the existence of the definite and indefinite articles, but the difference in opinions appears when treating nouns not modified by any article.

Some scholars speak of the omission of the article in such cases. But omission presupposes elliptical forms. In cases of absence of the article with the noun no omission takes place and we do not deal with ellipsis, because in elliptical forms the omitted element can be easily restored without affecting the meaning of the word-group, but in the cases under analysis no article can be restored or if we try to restore the indefinite or definite article, we’ll change the meaning of the word-group.

e.g. Will you join us? – Oh, yes, we’d be only glad to.

Here “to” represents the word-group “to join you”, which is omitted, but the meaning of “we’d be only glad to” is equal to that of “we’d be only glad to join you”.

On the other hand, in the sentence: “I like to read books” no article can be restored with the noun “books”, because the indefinite article can’t be used as the noun is used in the plural. And if we try to restore the definite article which can be used here we shall change the meaning of the sentence because we shall speak of some definite books and not books at large.

However, we should say that the article can be omitted though in some special stylistically or grammatically marked cases (in telegrams, newspaper headings, homogeneous coordinative groups).e.g. At the lesson both _ teacher and _ pupil should try to understand each other.

Thus, we can say that we can hardly speak of any omission of the article. We should sooner speak of the meaningful absence of the article in such cases.

Of late the idea of the meaningful absence of the article has developed into the notion of the zero article which is treated as the third article. This notion is closely connected with the notion of the zero morpheme. However, we have already agreed that the morpheme is a segmental part of the word which can’t be zero. Moreover, we treat the article as a word and a word can’t be zero. The word is a self-dependent language unit which can be used or not used in the sentence or phrase but it can’t be zero.

Hence, we reject the notion of the zero article. So we shall recognize the definite article, the indefinite article and the cases of meaningful or conventional absence of the article.

2) The functions of the article.

As for the meaning, the article has no lexical meaning of its own, but it can express a number of grammatical or semantic meanings. The articles are means of the category of determination which expresses definiteness as opposed to indefiniteness.

This category is not morphological. It is a semantico-syntactic category, because it deals with the meaning of a word-group “the article + a noun”, which influences the meaning of the utterance when actualizing the communicative aim of the speaker.

This category can be represented by 2 hierarchically organized oppositions. The higher opposition contrasts the definite article against the indefinite article and the cases of absence of the article with the nouns. On the plane of content it is marked by the seme “identification”. The unmarked member of the opposition is devoid of this seme.

The lower opposition functions within the unmarked member of the higher opposition and contrasts the indefinite article and the meaningful absence of the article with countable nouns in the plural against the cases of the absolute absence of articles with nouns. The semantic meaning and function of the article is to determine the mraning of the noun in actual for the speaker aspect.

e.g. They met on _Friday.

They met on a Friday.

They met on the Friday.

Determining the noun in actual for the speaker aspect, the articles can render the following meanings:

1) The indefinite article (it originates from the Old English numeral “one” and it influences its meanings):

a) classification. It means that the object is referred to a class of similar objects as one of the class: e.g. She is a talented young scientist.

b) quantification. It means that the speaker wants to stress that only one object is meant: e.g. She didn’t say a word. He will return in a week.

c) generalization. The speaker means any object of a class or group of similar objects: e.g. A grey suit will do for the occasion.

d) specification. We have it with a lexico-semantic variant of a noun which denotes a material or an abstract notion which is usually used without any article. It happens when the noun gets some additional explicit or implicit description and is presented in one of its possible forms of existence. It means that the speaker begins treating this noun as a countable one and the indefinite article in such cases renders the meaning close to that of classification or generalization.

The same happens when we deal with proper names. They become generalized losing their unique nature. When proper nouns are used to name objects belonging to or created by a person, the proper noun is treated by a common countable noun.

e.g. This book aroused an unusual interest with us.

He felt a passionate love of her.

A silk will do for your blouse.

She must be playing a Shopen.

I would like to buy a Repin.

The child asked for an ice-cream.

2) The definite article originates from the OE demonstrative pronoun and it influences its meanings which are:

a) identification. It means that the speaker points to a definite object picking it out from the class or group of similar objects.

e.g. The book is rather interesting.

I don’t like the ice-cream.

b) generic class identification. It means that the speaker names a class of objects without a particular reference to any of its constituents (exceptions “man” and “woman”).

e.g. The noun denotes substance.

The car is a domestic animal.

The dog is a true friend of man.

3) The meaningful absence of the article with the noun implies the following meanings:

a) classification with countable nouns in the Plural.

e.g. My parents are __ teachers.

b) generalization with countable nouns in the meaning of “any”.

e.g. I am fond of __ cats.

c) generic identification with names of materials, abstract notions and the nouns “man” and “woman”.

e.g. This dress is made of __ silk.

__ Love and __ devotion helped her to save their marriage.

Commenting on the meaning and functions of the article as a noun determiner we should say that its usage is significative in most cases and rather subjective because the article can change the meaning of the noun or the utterance the way the speaker wants it.

e.g. Would you like a / the / __ tea?

However we can’t help admitting that in some cases the usage of the article or the absence of it doesn’t imply any special meaning, that is the usage of the article is purely conventional.

e.g. in the original, at a glance, in a hurry, at dawn, in the morning, in detail.

Compare: To go to bed – лечь спать;

to go to the bed – подойти к кровати.

The usage of the article with geographical names is mostly conventional: Trafalgar square, the British Isles (группа островов), the United Kingdom (обозначение государства), The Baikal, Lake Baikal, Elbrus but the Caucasus.

Thus, the article, marking the left boundary of an attributive noun-phrase is a special functional part of speech, a noun determiner which conveys some specific, situationally significant meaning, ascribed by the speaker to the noun in an actual utterance.

The article makes up the nucleus of the functional semantic field of the category of determination.

Lecture 5: Some Theoretical Problems of English Adjectives and Adverbs.

Outline

1) The Category of Degrees of Comparison of Adjectives

2) The Syntactic Process of Substantivization of Adjectives

3) The “Stone Wall” Problem

1) The Category of Degrees of Comparison of Adjectives.

The only morphological category of the English adjectives and adverbs is the degrees of comparison. It is established on the basis of the gradual opposition: e.g. brave – braver – the bravest.

The category denotes different intensity of some property when comparing some objects possessing this property. This morphological category makes up the nucleus of the functional semantic field of comparison.

When speaking about the number of degrees of comparison, some scholars recognize 2 degrees: comparative and superlative, while others speak of 3 degrees – positive, comparative and superlative.

The authors of the first opinion say that forms like “brave”, “slow” do not imply any comparison, they only name some property without specifying the degree of its intensity. So they do not recognize the positive degree.

But if the forms “braver”, “the bravest” are opposed to “brave”, then all three of them make up one paradigm and the first member of it should be termed somehow. Hence, the appeared the notion of the positive degree.

It is well-known that not all the adjectives have this morphological category. Adjectives are subdivided into qualitative and relative. Relative adjectives denote some property through their relation to some object: wood – wooden, child – childish, water - watery.

Qualitative adjectives denote some inherent property of an object which may be presented as different in its amount or intensity.

So, only qualitative adjectives are characterized by the morphological category of the degrees of comparison. But even some of them lack this category if they denote a property which can hardly be presented as different in its amount or intensity: middle, pliant, dead, wounded, deaf, etc.

However, occasionally and in stylistically marked cases even such adjectives may be used in the comparative or superlative degree For example, in Hemingway’s novel “A Farewell to Arms” we can read: “You cannot be deader than dead. Todd is the deadest of them all”.

The degree of intensity of some property may be expressed morphologically and then we speak of the morphological category of the degrees of comparison, or lexically.

Morphological means include inflexions: /er/, for the comparative degree and /est/ for the superlative degree. We should also refer here a close group of suppletive forms: good – better – best; bad – worse – worst.

Some adjectives have two parallel forms in the comparative and superlative degrees but they differ in their meanings:

far – farther – farthest (distance);

further – furthest;

near – nearer – nearest (distance);

next (order);

late – later – latest (time);

latter – last (order);

old – older – oldest (age);

elder – eldest (age order in family relations when the adjectives are used in the attributive function).

e.g. She is my elder sister. She is five years older than I.

The idea of comparison cam also be expressed on the syntactic level with the help of lexical means including “more” and “most”.

It is worth mentioning that most adverbs can express the degree of intensity both morphologically and with the help of “more” and “most”.

e.g. quickly – quicker (more quickly).

Morphological means of expressing the degrees of comparison are restricted in their usage:

1) only monosyllabic qualitative adjectives can take them.

2) bi-syllabic adjectives ending in –y, -ow, -er, -re, -ble can take them.

3) bi-syllabic adjectives which have the stress on the 2^nd syllable like “complete”, “concise” etc.

As for the rest adjectives, they do not take any inflexions, but then there arises the problem of the phrases like “more” and “most beautiful”.

Traditionally they are treated as analytical forms of the degrees of comparison in which more and most are treated as auxiliaries.

The authors of this opinion proceed principally from the plane of content and are influenced by the parallelism in the meaning of the units like “braver - bravest” and “more beautiful – most beautiful.”

So the semantic principle predominates in this opinion. However if we accept this point of view why not consider such word-combinations as “very beautiful’, “extremely beautiful” as analytical forms of degrees of comparison, because in the final analysis such word-combinations also express some degree of intensity of the property. On the other hand, why not treat as analytical forms such word combinations as “many people, more people, most people” where some comparison is also expressed.

Answering this question we deal with the first argument in favour of rejecting the idea of analytical forms of the degrees of comparison of adjectives. The matter is that the first component “more” or “most” is syntactically significant and lexically meaningful what is foreign to analytical forms.

“More” and “most” have the same lexical meaning when they are combined with adjectives and when they are combined with nouns which have no analytical forms: more beautiful, more snow.

Hence, there should exist some syntactic relations between the components of such phrases, which are of quantitative nature, and that is foreign to analytical forms.

e.g. a bit more beautiful, much more beautiful.

Moreover, “more’ and “most” can function independently, preserving the same meaning, e.g. I like it more.

We should also stress that “more” and “most” are the morphological forms of the degrees of comparison “much” and “many”.

So if we treat “more beautiful” as an analytical form of the comparative degree then we are bound to accept that in this word the comparative degree is expressed twice, that is on the level of the “auxiliary” component and on the level of the whole phrase and that awakes doubts.

Hence, such word combinations should sooner be treated as free word combinations in which the adverb is used as a quantifier to the adjective while the adjective itself is an attribute to some noun.

Thus, the morphological category of degrees of comparison exists but it is characteristic of rather a limited group of qualitative adjectives. The greater bulk of English adjectives express difference in the degree of intensity of some property with the help of lexical means on the syntactic level.

2) The Syntactic Process of Substantivization of Adjectives.

When dealing with adjectives we can’t help commenting on the process of Adjective Substantivization. This process is based on more or less regular ellipsis of the noun in the attributive noun-phrases “an adjective + a noun” like “a private soldier” and “a private”; “an official post” and “an official”; “a daily paper” and “a daily”.

Logically there arises the question of the morphological status of these words, whether they are nouns or adjectives. To answer this question we should compare the characteristic features of the noun and of the Substantivized adjective. We are to mind:

a) the category of number (the ability to form Plural);

b) the usage with an article;

c) the ability to be modified by an attribute;

d) the ability to function as subject or object in the sentence;

The analysis of the language units under consideration shows that there are cases when these units satisfy all these noun features, but there are also case when these units possess not all but only some of the named characteristics.

e.g. The young, the poor, the wounded. These units are singular in their form but plural in their meaning, they do not differentiate the category of number, they can be used only with the definite article which only formally marks their nominative nature.

Traditionally cases of the first type are treated as cases of complete substantivization, while the cases of the second type are treated as cases of partial substantivization.

Yet, it seems right to say that in the first case we should sooner speak not of substantivized adjectives but of nouns, because words like “a private” have lost all their adjective features and have acquired all the characteristic features of nouns and hence they do not differ from them.

Similarly we don’t speak of adverbial verbs or nominal verbs when they are derived from adverbs or nouns by conversion.

As for the forms “the rich, “the brave”, they can be treated and called as substantivized adjectives, because they have preserved some of their adjective features alongside with the new nominal features.

e.g. The opinion of the old, of the older, of the oldest happened to be the same.

“The old”, “the older”, “the oldest” are substantivized adjectives.

The substantivized adjectives take the intermediate position between the noun and the adjective. They belong to the periphery of the morphological field of both: the adjective and the noun. They can be located in the area where the morphological fields of these parts of speech overlap the borders of each other.

3) The “Stone Wall” Problem

When dealing with adjectives and first of all with their syntactic functioning, we come across another problem which is widely known in linguistics as the “stone wall” problem. This problem is connected with the morphological status of the first component in phrases of the pattern: N1+N2+N3…, which are typical of modern English.

The first component stands in preposition to a noun and modifies it performing the function of an attribute. Such features are characteristic of adjectives. So there arises the question, whether the first component is a noun or whether or whether it is an adjective formed by conversion from a noun. The first component in such phrases evidently undergoes the process of adjectivization on the plane of content, while it remains unchanged on the plane of expression.

So far no unanimous conclusion has been arrived at, concerning the morphological status of the first component. Some authors, like Henry Sweet, treat it as a noun, others, like Otto Jespersen, take it for an adjective and some scholars treat it as a special part of speech, that is “an attributive noun” (professor Shoobin). Taking into consideration these three points of view it doesn’t seem advantageous to agree to the third opinion, because practically the same word with the same meaning should be simultaneously included into 2 different parts of speech.

To make it clear for us whether we deal with a noun or adjective when speaking about the component “stone”, we should take into consideration the basic features of these parts of speech and apply them to the word under analysis. So the noun is characterized by the morphological category of number. As for the first component in phrases like “stone wall”, it does not differentiate this category. It means that this component does not change its number and is mostly used in the singular.

We can say “one stone”, “many stones”, but we cannot say “a stones wall”. This feature differs words under analysis from nouns proper. However the morphological category of number is not characteristic of adjectives either. Besides, nouns, naming materials, are uncountable and don’t differentiate the category of number. In the phrase “a stone wall” the first component sooner names material than a concrete object. So the fact that the first component doesn’t differentiate the category of number is not sufficient to reject its noun nature.

We can say that the “stone” component sooner denotes substance like nouns and not property like adjectives, because for some of such components there exist derived adjectives:

e.g. stone – stony;

ice – icy;

wood – wooden.

However, as a rule the derived adjectives name some property only based n its relation to the corresponding noun. They usually require some additional meaning.

a stone wall- a stony road; a stony face;

a glass door – a glassy look.

The matter is that English adjectives lost their inflexions in middle English and early modern English and coincided with the corresponding nouns on the plane of expression.

каменная стена – a stone wall; стена, сделанная из камня – a wall made of stone.

It may seem logical to think that we deal with 2 homonyms: an adjective and a noun, which reveal their difference only in functioning. If “stone” is used attributively, then it is an adjective, if it is used as a subject or some other function, typical of nouns, then it is a noun.

Yet, we can doubt this opinion, because adjectives can freely function as attributes and predicatives while the words under analysis can hardly be used predicatively.

e.g. this is a beautiful dress – This dress is beautiful.

This is a stone wall. – This wall is stone (It is impossible to say that!!!)

Hence, we can conclude that the “stone” component is hardly an adjective. Besides, in a number of cases it can be modified by an adjective or a possessive pronoun, like a noun.

e.g. a silk tie, a red silk tie.

So we can conclude that the “stone” component denotes not a property but a substance which serves as a means to name the property of some other objects. The phrases like “a stone wall” consist of 2 nouns and are called binomes. In modern English, especially in the newspaper style such phrases may include more than two nouns and are called polynomes.

e.g. Moscow metro station

coal industry unemployment rates

Lecture 6. The English Verb and Its Morphological Categories.

5) The Morphological Field of the Verb.

6) The Category of Tense

7) The category of Aspect

8) The Category of Retrospective Coordination (perfect)

9) The Category of Mood

10) The Category of Voice

1) The Morphological Field of the Verb

The morphological field of the English verb is heterogeneous including several morphologically and syntactically specific groups of verbs: regular and irregular. The periphery of the morphological field of the verb is made up by two main classes of verbs – regular and irregular. The periphery of the morphological field of the verb includes such groups of verbs as functional verbs, modal verbs and verbals.

Regular and irregular verbs are differentiated formally depending on the way they form their past tense and participle II. The larger group includes regular verbs which employ the inflexion /ed/ to build their past tense and participle II. The smaller group is made up by irregular verbs which form their past tense and participle II in some ways:

1) by sound alternation (break - broke);

2) by the sound alternation and the dental suffix simultaneously, though the dental suffix is practically not singled out today (mean - meant, sleep - slept);

3) by the suffix /en/ often in combinations with sound alternation in participle II forms (steal – stolen, be - been);

4) by experiencing no formal changes due to the reduction of inflexions in middle English (put – put - put);

5) suppletively (go – went, be – was, were).

From the functional point of view verbs can be notional and functional (formal). Notional verbs name actions or processes and are used as predicates. Functional verbs do not name actions or processes; they only express different grammatical categories or meanings. In most cases they are devoid or nearly devoid of their lexical meaning. Functional verbs can’t be used as primary predicates. They function only as a part of a predicate, that is as auxiliaries in analytical forms, semi-auxiliaries in compound verbal predicates or link-verbs in nominal predicates. Being devoid of lexical meaning, functional verbs can combine with semantically or lexically incompatible verbs: have lost, has given.

Another closed group of verbs in the periphery of the morphological field of the verb is made up of modal verbs. They are deficient verbs because they lack a number of grammatical categorial meanings, typical of the verbs. Modal verbs do not differentiate person and number (I can, he can), aspect and voice, perfect and most of them do not differentiate tense. Only some modal verbs “can” and “may” differentiate past tense forms. Modal verbs have no verbals. They do not name actions or processes but only the speaker’s attitude or evaluation of some action, process or state named by the infinitive following the modal verb. Hence, modal verbs cannot function as primary predicates. They only modify an established type of primary predicates adding modality to it.

The periphery of the morphological field of the verb includes a heterogeneous micro field of verbals, including infinitives, gerunds and participles. Verbal or non-finite forms of the verbs are opposed to finite verb-forms, from which they are derived. On the basis of this opposition we can speak of the grammatical category of finititute. The common feature of this opposition is predicativeness because both members are predicative units, but the marked member of this opposition, which is the finite verb-form expresses primary predication, while the unmarked member, which is a verbal, can express only secondary predication. Hence, they differ in their functioning. Finite forms are used as primary predicates, while verbals can be used as any member of the sentence but the primary predicate.

However, verbals can perform the function of a secondary predicate on the level of a syntactic secondary predicative construction, which appears in English sentences due to the syntactic process of contamination. Verbals are intermediate between the verb and some other part of speech. Infinitives and gerunds share the features of the verb and the noun, while participles share the features of the verb and of the adjective or adverb. So we can see that the morphological field of the verb is heterogeneous but the classes or groups of units making it up are quite distinguishable.

2) The Category of Tense.

The existence of the morphological category of tense with English verbs finds no objections in linguistic works. It is quite logical that events exist and develop only in time. Hence, the morphological category of tense is aimed at reflecting the objective category of time. The difficulty is that we should differentiate between the objective and relative time.

The matter is that when giving a temporal characteristic of some action we take some moment of time as a starting point. If this starting point is the actual moment of speaking, then the action taking place at that moment belongs to the present period of time and we use the present tense. If the action precedes the moment of speaking excluding it, then it belongs to the past and we use the past tense. If the action follows the moment of speaking then it belongs to the future and we use a future tense. In all these cases the morphological category of tense reflects the objective time. But in most cases the morphological category of tense reflects not the objective but the relative time. The matter is that mostly we correlate actions not with the actual moment of speaking but with some relative moment of time or temporal center. It is usually behind the actual moment of speaking or the objective time.

e.g. He says that he works at school.

The verb-form “says” is used in the Present tense but the action does not coincide with the moment of speaking.

Taking into consideration relative temporal centers we speak of three principal tense forms: present, past, future.

The past and the future are separated by the plane of the present and don’t get in touch but in order to express the idea of futurity, related to the past, the English system of tense-forms includes a special form – Future-in-the-Past.

e.g. He said that he would do his best.

Past Present Future

Traditional grammar speaks of 16 tense-forms in the active voice but actually there exist 4 tense-forms in English. All the other predicate verb-forms (is reading, has done) are not pure tense-forms. They appear as a result of expressing not only the category of tense, but also of some other verb categories: perfect and aspect.

The latter two categories are secondary to the primary tense category and only modify it. So such forms as “is working, “has done” are not different self-dependent tense-forms. They are the same basic tense forms modified by the categories of aspect and perfect and as a result they have compound forms different from pure tense-forms.

So when speaking about the category of tense, we differentiate 4 temporal centers reflecting objective or relative time. These temporal centers include 4 basic tense-forms which are traditionally called Present Indefinite, Past Indefinite, Future Indefinite and Future Indefinite in the Past and three additional verb-forms when the tense form is modified by the categories of perfect or aspect. It means that each temporal center unites four verb-forms.

Speaking of the category of tense, we can’t but touch upon the problem of the sequence of tenses, typical of English, but unknown in Russian. The traditional English grammar treats the sequence of tenses as a mechanical shift of the verb tense form in the subordinate clause if the predicate verb in the principal clause is used in the Past tense.

e.g. Я знал, что он живёт в Лондоне. I knew that he lived in London.

However, it does not seem quite right to speak of any mechanical shift. The matter is that we should sooner speak not of the sequence of tenses but of the sequence of actions and events. It means that if the actions are simultaneous we use tense-forms not modified by the category of perfect.

As soon as we want to stress the idea of priority of one action to another, we modify the basic tense-form by the category of perfect.

e.g. I knew that he lived in London – simultaneity;

I knew that he had lived in London then – priority.

The category of ASPECT if it modifies the basic tense-form of the predicate verb does not influence the sequence of actions. So what is meant by the traditional term “sequence of tenses” is a synthesis of two categorial notions:

1) the category of tense, which implies the relation of the action to some temporal center;

2) the category of perfect which implies the relations of actions to each other or to some temporal center.

Characterizing the category of tense it is necessary to say that the formal oppositions between verb-forms expressing different tense-forms can be reduced in the meaning of some other tense-form. The most typical cases of reduction are:

1) the usage of the perfect tense-form or its aspectively modified variant instead of future tense, e.g. comes – is coming to express a planned or anticipated as well as in subordinate clauses of time and condition.

2) The usage of the past tense-form or its aspectively modified variant instead of the Future-in-the-Past tense to express a planned or anticipated action as well as in subordinate clauses of time and condition. E.g. She said she was leaving on Monday and she would be glad if he came to see her off.

The established formal oppositions expressing particular tense-forms holdgood only for the indicative mood.

Oblique mood forms radically change the tense-meaning of the verb-form. E.g. They were here last month (Past Indefinite). I wish they were here now (Subjunctive II Present).

3) The category of Aspect.

The category of aspect is a verb category which denotes the character of the development of an action or event. Care should be taken that the character of the development of an action can also be expressed not by the morphological category of aspect but by some other lexical means, e.g. continued to work, jumped and jumped and jumped.

As the character of the development of an action in English is often expressed by lexical means or even remains unexpressed, some scholars, especially in this country, doubt the existence of this category with English verbs.

Nevertheless the morphological category of aspect of the English verb is established on the basis of the privative opposition of verb-forms like: writes – is writing, wrote – was writing and so on.

Only the forms containing Participle I explicitly present the action as a process of developing in time. They are the marked members of the opposition. They are the forms which actually express the category of aspect. So the morphological category of aspect is expressed by the auxiliary verb “to be” in the required tense-form and Participle I of the notional verb. The unmarked member of the opposition does not express explicitly the character of development of the action. It only names an action and so it does not actually express the category of aspect.

Both members of the opposition under consideration are contrasted as continuous and non-continuous forms.

Traditionally we name forms like “is writing”, “was writing” as the Present continuous and Past Continuous tense. Such terms do not seem to be satisfactory from the theoretical point of view, because we deal not with different tenses in such oppositions.

The tense is the same in both marked and unmarked members of the opposition but in the marked member the basic tense category is modified by the additional category of aspect. If we agree that Present Continuous is a special tense form which is contrasted to the Present Indefinite tense then we’ll have to agree that continuous is another tense category and the action is developing in two different tenses – present and continuous – at once and that is hardly acceptable.

Hence, forms like “is writing” should be called the Present Tense of the Continuous aspect. Finally it is necessary to say that continuous verb-forms are more expressive than non-continuous and so they are very often used in colloquial speech or for stylistic purposes even with verbs which denote a process and are not usually used in the continuous aspect (love, like, understand etc).

Such forms as “I’m loving you” become stylistically marked and express a peculiar emotional state of the speaker.

I am not understanding you (some additional feelings are expressed).

4) The Category of Retrospective Coordination (perfect).

Perfect forms are widely used in English, having no corresponding forms in Russian. They are distinguished by their form as all of them include the auxiliary verb “have” and Participle II or when modified by the category of aspect, they also include participle I. Participles name the action itself while the auxiliary verb “have” expresses the categories of tense and mood. The problem of the status and meaning of the perfect has always been disputable.

There are 4 principal points of view on this problem:

1. It is a tense category;

2. it is an aspect category;

3. it is a tense-aspect category;

4. it is a special self-dependent verb-category.

Let’s comment on these opinions.

1) Many linguists and the traditional grammars treat the perfect as a tense form. This idea was put forward in the works of Henry Sweet, Irteneva, and others. They stress that the principal meaning of the perfect is to express priority and that implies personal relations. However this idea seems to be deficient. Let’s take such oppositions as: writes – has written, wrote – had written etc. We can notice that in both members of these oppositions the same tense is expressed but in the second member the category of perfect is added. So, if the perfect were a tense form then we should speak of two tenses in the second members, but an action can exist and develop only in one tense form (time plane). It can’t develop in two tenses simultaneously. Hence, the perfect can’t be a special tense.

2) Other linguists – Deutschbein, West, Vorontsova – treat the perfect as a special aspect category, the grammatical meaning of which is that of result or retrospective connection. Although we can’t deny the presence and significance of this meaning, it is hard to agree to the idea that the perfect is an aspect form. If we take oppositions like “has written – has been writing, had written – had been writing”, we can see that both members express the same tense, but they differ in their aspect because the second member happens to be modified by the continuous aspect. And if we should treat the perfect as a special aspect form then in the second member of these oppositions we shall have to admit the presence of two aspect forms at once: perfect and continuous. But that is hardly acceptable because the action can’t develop in two different aspects simultaneously.

3) Professor Ivanova treats the perfect as a peculiar tense-aspect form. This opinion implies that the categories of tense and aspect are fused together in the Perfect form. So the perfect is a verb-form of double nature. As a tense form, the Perfect expresses priority, as an aspect form it denotes the development and completion of some action. The completion is logically based on priority and is a result of it. This idea seems quite reasonable. However, the status of the perfect remains indefinite, because we can’t part with the notions of tense and aspect here as well.

4) A number of authors treat the perfect as a special verb category, neither tense nor aspect. This opinion was put forward in the works of professors Smirnitsky, Ilyish and Blokh. Smirnitsky was the first to treat the perfect as a special verb category. He defined it as the category of “time correlation”. The basic meaning of this category is to bring together by contrast two temporally different actions of stages of the same action and to express the idea of precedence of one of them.

However, professors Ilyish and Blokh say that the aspective characteristic of the action is underestimated in Smirnitsky’s definition of the perfect. Besides, professor Ilyish was right to note that the idea of priority can also be expressed lexically, e.g. First he copied the text and then he learnt it.

Emphasizing the presence of the meaning of result and completion, Ilyish defines the perfect as the category of correlation, but this notion is also rather vague. That is why professor Blokh defined the perfect as the category of retrospective coordination, which seems to be most adequate at present. This definition implies precedence, coordination of actions, based on the completion or coordination of an action and some moment of time to stress the resultative aspect of the action.

So, the category of perfect or retrospective coordination is a special verb category which is based on two oppositions: Perfect – non-Perfect; Perfect Continuous – Continuous.

So we can conclude that the verb has one basic category of tense, which when we actualize an action or event can be modified by some other verb categories, like aspect, perfect, and voice. All of them can be treated as secondary to the primary category of tense.

5) The Category of Mood.

The category of mood expresses the relations between the action and reality from the speaker’s point of view. He can treat it as real, unreal, probable or as a kind of inducement. Hence, we traditionally differentiate 3 principal types of mood in English: the indicative, the imperative and the oblique moods. The number and types of concrete mood forms can vary with different authors, because of the variety of verb forms, their homonymy on the plane of expression and difference on the plane of content.

The indicative mood presents an action or event as a real fact from the grammatical point of view. The verb in this mood form strictly distinguishes the tense category, because it names actions taking place in the objective time: present, past or future.

The imperative mood expresses an inducement, addressed by the speaker to the addressee. The peculiarity of this mood-form is that it does not distinguish tense, aspect and voice categories. It is used only in actual intercourse and so it coincides with the moment of speaking. Hence, it always has the form of the present tense.

e.g. Stay here! Don’t go there.

However, taking into consideration the meaning of the imperative mood, we can also refer to its field some interrogative sentences which actually express not a question, but a request or a mild command. The predicate verb-form in such sentences coincides with the indicative mood in such cases.

e.g. Will you open the door? – mild command.

Shall I do it now?

Modal verbs with an infinitive can be used in the imperative mood to express a request, a permission, a prohibition or an order.

e.g. You may go now.

You mustn’t stay here too long.

You are to come at ten.

Some authors speak of the word combination with “let” as an analytical form of the Imperative Mood. Semantically such constructions can express an inducement. This inducement is addressed to the 1^st person or to the 3^rd person (Let me stay, let him stay) and in the last case it is not direct. When treating this construction with “let” as an analytical form of the Imperative Mood, the component “let” is treated as an auxiliary element. It is true that in some cases “let” happens to be considerably devoid of its lexical meaning.

e.g. Let’s do it now! Let him stay here!

However, it is difficult to agree to the idea that constructions with “let” are analytical forms of the Imperative Mood. We can give the following arguments:

1) The pronoun or noun is an object to “let” and so there are syntactic relations between the noun and pronoun what is foreign to analytical forms.

2) We can find secondary predicative relations between the noun or pronoun and the infinitive which follows it, thus making up a CO construction, what is foreign to analytical forms. E.g. Let me help you.

3) The component “let” can hardly be a pure auxiliary element, as in negative and interrogative forms it takes an auxiliary itself. In addition to that, when transformed into a declarative sentence it becomes the predicate and takes a subject. Hence, the prn or noun after “let” can’t be the subject of “let” as some authors think.

e.g. Will you let me do it? Don’t let us stay here. She never lets me stay there after ten.

(aux) (aux) (subject) (predicate)

So the word combinations with “let” can be treated as a means of expressing the meaning of the Imperative Mood, but it is not an analytical form.

The imperative mood is formed by the infinitive without the particle “to”, but unlike the infinitive it takes the auxiliary in the negative and interrogative forms:

e.g. Don’t forget it. I want not to forget it.

When treating Oblique Moods we can say that it is one of disputable questions in English grammar. Different authors speak of different types and number of oblique moods. Oblique moods denote unreal or problematic actions and so they can’t express objective time and do not distinguish tense-forms like the Indicative Mood. Oblique Moods denote only relative time relations, that is simultaneity and futurity as one time-plane and priority as the other time-plane.

Oblique moods have a range of forms including:

1) Synthetic forms which coincide with the forms of the indicative mood:

e.g. I wish he came. It’s time he were there.

2) Analytical forms which coincide with the forms of the Indicative Mood or with free word-combinations (a modal verb + an infinitive).

e.g. I wish he had done it. I suggest that he should do it.

3) The form of the infinitive without the particle “to”:

e.g. I suggest that he stay a little longer. (Subjunctive I).

Phone me if he be ill.

Due to the variety of forms which express identical or nearly identical meanings, it is impossible to make up regular paradigms of Oblique Moods.

Hence, some authors take into consideration mostly the plane of content and distinguish a certain number of Oblique Moods, while other scholars pay more attention to the plane of expression and speak of some other kind of Oblique Moods.

The extreme points of view are expressed by Deutchbein who speaks of 16 moods in English and by Baihudarov who denies the existence of the morphological category of Mood with English verbs.

The most popular in grammar has become the system of moods put forward by Smirnitsky. He speaks of 6 moods:

- The Indicative mood;

- The imperative mood;

- Subjunctive I;

- Subjunctive II;

- The Conditional Mood;

- The suppositional Mood.

Though this system is not ideal it has its merit of being most known and popular with learners of English. The main drawbacks of this system are:

1) Subjunctive I and Suppositional Mood are differentiated mostly by their form, being identical in their meaning, e.g. It is necessary that he should be present there. It’s necessary that he be present there.

2) The term ‘the conditional Mood” is not quite appropriate, because this mood form is mostly used to express not the condition but the consequence, e.g. He would support (expresses consequence) me if he were ( expresses condition ) here now.

The Conditional Mood denotes an unreal action and it is built with the help of the auxiliary verbs “should” or “would” and a non-perfect infinitive to express simultaneity or futurity or a perfect infinitive to express priority. The conditional Mood is used in simple sentences with an implied condition or in the main clause of a complex conditional sentence.

e.g. If he were not busy, he would call on me. He would undoubtedly have joined us. But for the late hour I would go there. Do it now, otherwise you would be sorry to have wasted your time.

Subjunctive II denotes an unreal action. In its form it coincides with the Past Indicative not modified by the Perfect, when expressing priority. Subjunctive II is used in different subordinate clauses or sometimes in simple sentences with an implied consequence.

e.g. If only he were not so light-minded! It’s time he came. I wish he had paid some attention to it. She behaves as if she were not to blame. I’d rather you had followed the doctor’s advice. It is not as if she had never thought of it.

The Suppositional Mood and Subjunctive I denote a problematic action which is not contrary to reality. The Suppositional Mood is built with the help of the auxiliary verb “should” and the infinitive, while Subjunctive I coincides in its form with the infinitive without the particle “to”. They express the same meaning and differ only stylistically. Subjunctive I is more typical of American English and newspaper style.

e.g. Ring me up if he should arrive (arrive). It is necessary that everybody should be present there (be present). The suggestion is that you should take the flour at the meeting. She shut the window lest the child should catch a cold.

Taking into consideration the fact that the Oblique Mood forms coincide with the forms of the indicative mood, there arises the problem of their homonymy or polysemy. Many authors think that we deal with grammatical homonyms which coincide in their form but differ in their grammatical meaning.

Other scholars think that homonymy should be restricted only to the forms of the Suppositional Mood, on the one hand, and the word-combination “the modal verb “should” + an infinitive” on the other hand.

In all other cases they speak of polysemy, because the verb-forms have the same lexical meaning and are identical on the plane of expression. The difference in their grammatical meaning is brought about by the syntactic context.

e.g. He lived there (priority, past tense, indicative mood, a real action).

He said that he lived there (simultaneity, past tense, indicative mood, a real action).

If only he lived there! (simultaneity, SII present, an unreal action).

So it seems more logical to speak of contextual polysemy of verb-forms. Stressing the role of the syntactic context in differentiating mood-forms, we can put forward an idea that the category of mood is sooner not a morphological category but a contextual or syntactic category of the sentence.

We proceed from the fact that a verb-form by itself fails to identify Mood. It acquires the concrete Mood-idea only when used in a syntactic context, that is, in a sentence.

6) The Category of Voice.

The grammatical category of voice expresses the relations between the Subject and the Predicate showing whether the Subject is the doer or recipient of the action.

The category of voice is recognized when we deal with an action. Strictly speaking, all the linguists do not deny the existence of the Active and Passive Voice forms.

The planes of expression and content differentiate these two basic voice-forms. The marked member of the opposition is the passive voice-form. On the plane of expression it is marked by the presence of the auxiliary verb “to be” in the required tense-form and Participle II of the notional verb. On the plane of content these two verb-forms are also contrasted showing that the unmarked member of the opposition is the doer o source of the action.

e.g. He opened the door (the doer of the action).

The wind opened the door (the source of the action).

The door was opened by the wind (the recipient of the action).

When we deal with the Passive voice form, the actual doer of the action may remain unexpressed if it is of secondary significance or unknown, but when we want to specially name the doer of the action, it can be introduced with the preposition “by”. We should also remember that a means of an action should be introduced with the preposition “with”.

e.g. This book was written by a young writer. = A young writer wrote the book.

The book was covered with a newspaper. = Somebody covered the book with a newspaper.

In a number of cases the opposition between Active and Passive voice-forms can be reduced. We may have verb-forms which are active on the plane of expression and passive on the plane of content. In such cases the predicate verb usually denotes not an action but a kind of property.

e.g. This book sells well. This material wears well. The shop closes at 8 o’clock.

When dealing with the Passive Voice we are to comment on its coincidence with the nominal predicate on the plane of expression.

e.g. The door was closed by a watchman.

The door was closed but the window was open.

In the first sentence we deal with an action performed by a definite agent, while in the 2^nd sentence a state is expressed. “Was closed” in the 2nd sentence is parallel to “was open” which a Compound Nominal Predicate is, and so, likewise, “was closed” is a Compound Nominal Predicate.

But “was closed” in the 1^st sentence expresses an action and so it is a Simple Verbal Predicate in the Passive voice.

The principal difference between the homonymous forms like “was closed” lies on the plane of content, whether an action or state is expressed.

The idea of action can be expressed not only by the introduction of an agent or means of the action. It can also be hinted at by adverbial modifiers of manner, comparison, result or purpose.

e.g. The door was closed slowly.

The window was closed for the rain drops not to fall on the floor and furniture.

The door was closed as if something heavy had fallen down with a crash.

When a form like “was closed” is used as a chain in a sequence of actions, then it is undoubtedly a passive voice form.

e.g. The cab rode away, the gate was closed and the pupils ran back to their classrooms.

In spite of the fact that we differentiate two basic voice-forms, some authors speak of some other voice-forms, like the Reflexive Voice, the Reciprocal Voice and the Middle Voice.

The Reflexive Voice.

The problem of the Reflexive voice arises when we deal with such language units as “a verb + a reflexive pronoun”.

e.g. He hurt himself; she found herself in the yard; the dressed themselves.

Some authors say that in such cases we deal with a special reflexive voice-form in which the reflexive pronoun is treated as an auxiliary element. It means that they take similar units for analytical forms. Other scholars speak of free word-combinations in such cases. They say that the units under consideration consist of a verb in the active voice and an object to it, expressed by a reflexive pronoun.

At present the 2^nd opinion seems to be more convincing and some arguments can be given in its favour:

1) The reflexive pronoun denotes an object at which the action named by the verb is directed. In such phrases the reflexive pronoun can be replaced by some other word denoting an object or the verb can take two or more homogeneous objects, that is a reflexive pronoun and some other nouns or pronouns. The syntactic relations between the verb and the reflexive pronoun are similar to those between the verb and the other homogeneous object. So if we consider that there are syntactic relations between the verb and the reflexive pronoun then it is not an analytical voice-form, but a free word-combination.

e.g. He hurt himself or he hurt his finger, or he hurt him and himself, he hurt himself and his friend, he dressed himself and his younger brother.

2) The reflexive pronoun can take its own appositive attribute and it means that it can have independent of the head word syntactic relations, what is foreign to analytical forms, because the latter are treated as one unit.

Hence, the reflexive pronoun getting into syntactic relations of its own can’t be an auxiliary element. It is a self-dependent member of the sentence, that is an object.

e.g. He was defending himself, a victim of the plot. (an apposition to “himself”).

3) The meaning of the verb in most cases is not changed when we add a reflexive pronoun or drop it. The reflexive pronoun fills in the position of an object opened by the verb due to its transitive nature and syntactic valiancy [ei] in the process of producing a sentence. Not to fill it in can make the verb phrase or the sentence grammatically incomplete or deficient.

e.g. He hurt … (grammatically incomplete).

Moreover, sometimes when the subject and the object of the predicate verb denote the same agent, the reflexive pronoun can be easily omitted when the verb is used intransitively and that is foreign to auxiliaries in analytical verb-forms.

He dressed himself = he dressed;

He washed himself = he washed.

The omitted reflexive pronoun can be easily restored and should be restored when the verb takes two or more homogeneous objects.

e.g. He dressed and his younger brother – wrong.

He dressed himself and his younger brother – right

4) The reflexive pronoun has independent of the predicate verb syntactic relations with the subject, because it agrees with it in gender, number and person and that is foreign to analytical forms.

He dressed himself. They dressed themselves.

The reflexive pronoun is in secondary appositive relations with the subject and it can easily be separated from the verb to modify the subject when it becomes rhematic or the communicative centre of the utterance and that is impossible for analytical forms.

e.g. He hurt himself. It was he himself who was hurt.

However, those who recognize the existence of the Reflexive voice say that there are such verb-phrases with a reflexive pronoun which deny all or nearly all the arguments given above. They mean such phrases as: to find oneself, to pride oneself, to behave oneself.

We can’t say “he found himself and all the others in the yard”. The matter is that in such phrases the reflexive pronoun happens to change the meaning of the verb.

e.g. He found the book. He found himself in the street.

He behaved outrageously (вызывающе).

He behaved himself (должным образом).

To choose any point of view remains with the scholar. Nevertheless, it seems more reasonable to agree that in English there is no special reflexive voice. Mostly we deal with a free word combination, consisting of a verb in the Active Voice and a reflexive pronoun as an object to it. But there is a group of reflexive verbs which make up a lexico-semantic group. These verbs establish phraseological units with reflexive pronouns similar to bound phrases like: give up, look after, look for.

The Reciprocal Voice.

Some authors speak of a special reciprocal voice, when treating such word-combinations as: greeted each other or praised one another.

We can treat this problem the same way as the problem of the reflexive voice, but we can say at once that the relations between the verb and the reciprocal pronoun are even looser than those between the verb and the reflexive pronoun.

1) First of all it seems quite possible that the reciprocal pronoun can be coordinated with some other noun or pronoun in the function of an object and so it has syntactic relations with the verb what is foreign to analytical forms.

e.g. They kissed each other and the child. They passed one another and all the guests. So the reciprocal pronoun can hardly be an auxiliary.

2) Besides, the verb can freely function without the reciprocal pronoun in the same meaning.

e.g. The kissed and felt into a lively talk. They smiled and parted.

3) Sometimes a reciprocal pronoun can be joined to the verb with a preposition which marks the syntactic relations between the verb and the pronoun what is foreign to analytical forms.

e.g. They smiled to each other.

The reciprocal pronoun does not change the meaning of the verb. So it seems logical to consider that “a verb + a reciprocal pronoun” is not an analytical verb-form of the reciprocal voice. It is a free word-combination, in which the verb takes an object expressed by a reciprocal pronoun.

The Middle Voice.

Some authors speak of a special voice-form when comparing such sentences as:

I opened (1) the door and The door opened (2).

They say that in the 2^nd sentence the verb is used in the middle voice. We can’t deny that though there is no difference between the verb-forms on the plane of expression, there some difference between them on the plane of content. In sentences like “I opened the door” the subject is the doer of the action which is directed at some object. So it is a pure case of the Active Voice.

But in the sentence “The door opened” the Subject is not the doer of the action, it is sooner acted upon. So, on the plane of content it is close to the Passive Voice.

Taking into consideration the mixture of two principal voice-forms: active and passive in one verb-form, some scholars arrive at the conclusion that in the form like “opened (2)” we should speak of a special voice-form which they suggest calling “the middle voice”.

However it does not seem the best way out. Without a context the verb forms like “opened (1)” and “opened (2)” c

Дата добавления: 2015-07-20